This blogaround brought to you by sparkles.
Recommended Reading:
Colin: [Content Note: Terrorism; death penalty] Guilty: Tsarnaev Convicted in Boston Bombing
Rafi: [CN: Racism; police brutality; images of violence] "That's why cops shoot to kill. If you shoot to injure, you leave a witness."
Kirsten: [CN: Rape culture; sexual assault] I Was Sexually Assaulted At UVA. I Don't Accept the Reporter's Apology.
TLC: [CN: Transphobia] Groundbreaking EEOC Ruling Finds the Army Discriminated Against Transgender Employee by Denying Bathroom Access, Pronouns
Qimmah: [CN: Racism] Are All YouTube Stars Created Equally?
Ragen: [CN: Fat hatred; weight loss talk] Perpetual Potential Thin Person
Mustang Bobby: [CN: War] Those Were the Days
George: An Extraordinary Photo of a Bobcat Fishing for Sharks
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
The Wednesday Blogaround
Daily Dose of Cute
"Don't worry, Duckie—I'll protect you from whatever that noise is."
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
Let's Talk (More) About Sex
[Content Note: Discussion of consent and boundaries.]
One of the things that came up during the discussion of talking about sex during sex is the idea that some people don't feel okay talking about sex because they've been entrained to be ashamed of sex. That's something I addressed a little bit in my tweets on the subject, but I wanted to talk about it a little bit more.
We've discussed in this space how, despite our being grown-ass adults who don't actually need anyone's permission to live our lives how we want, or to dress how we want, or to make other personal choices, it's sometimes helpful, empowering, freeing, to have someone else just say: You have permission to do this thing.
So, in that spirit, here are a few things that we all have permission to do:
1. We are allowed to want to have sex. We are also allowed to not want to have sex. We are allowed to have the urge for sexual interaction with another person(s). We are allowed to not have any sexual urges.
2. We are allowed to enjoy sex.
3. We are allowed to ask someone if they are interested in engaging in sexual activity. We do not have to wait to be asked. We do not have to abide ancient rules established by the Sexuality Police about who should ask whom, how long we have to know someone before asking, how many dates we have to go on. We don't have to only ask people who look one way or another. We don't have to be married to have sex. We can ask whom we want, when we want, provided that there is no possibility for coercion (i.e. a student-teacher relationship), that the other person is capable of consent, and that we are willing to respect their answer, even and especially if that answer is no.
4. We are allowed to say no, if someone asks us.
5. We are allowed (and obliged) to talk frankly about taking precautions to have safer sex, to protect against sexually transmitted diseases and/or unintended pregnancy.
6. We are allowed to set ground rules and boundaries for sexual activity. What we like to do; what we don't want to do. We are allowed to establish safewords.
7. We are allowed to talk about relevant sexual history and/or abuse history that informs our sexuality and/or our feelings of safety.
8. We are allowed to ask a potential partner, straightforwardly, if they are willing to respect the concept of ongoing consent and make sure they understand that either partner is allowed to withdraw consent and stop sexual activity at any time by request.
9. We are allowed to talk to a potential partner about our expectations and our desires. We are allowed to say what we want.
10. We are allowed to not engage with sexual activity with anyone unless and until we feel safe. (And so do they.)
11. We are allowed to talk during sex, about what is happening. We are allowed to ask: "Will you do this thing to me?" We are allowed to ask: "Do you want me to do this thing to you?" We are allowed to want to be able to say, and to hear, "Yes." Over and over.
12. We are allowed, provided our partner is into it, to talk dirty during sex. Nasty, naughty, filthy talk, without shame.
13. We are allowed to get very, very good at weaving these two things together—consent talk and dirty talk. We are allowed to be turned the fuck on by giving and receiving enthusiastic, breathless, urgent consent.
14. We are allowed to tell our partner(s) during sex what feels good and what doesn't.
15. We are allowed to have whatever consensual kinks we want, without shame.
16. We are allowed to define "having sex" in a way that makes the most sense for us, depending on our partner(s) and our preferences. "Having sex" does not just have to mean PIV intercourse between a cis man and a cis woman.
17. We are allowed to make our sex lives look like whatever we want them to look like, without shame. And without any feelings of being "abnormal," if our sex lives don't look always or ever like some traditional "foreplay-intercourse-cuddling" routine. Maybe your whole sex life is what someone else calls "foreplay." That's okay. Maybe you want your entire sex life to consist of kissing, and nothing more. That's okay. Maybe your sex life centers around activities or role-playing or fetishes or toys that don't get talked about very much, or get called "deviant" when they do. That's okay. It's fine. It's cool. We're allowed. Find someone who wants to do your thing with you, and do it. Without shame.
18. We are allowed to want to do different things with different partners. What works with one partner might not work with the next.
19. We are allowed to have multiple partners. Successively, or concurrently. We are allowed to negotiate that in a way that keeps everyone safe.
20. We are allowed to talk about sex after having sex, to say what we liked (or what we didn't like).
21. We are allowed our sexual agency. We are allowed our own individual seuxality. We are allowed to own it without shame.
This is, obviously, not a comprehensive list. I could easily write all day, covering everything from masturbation to scheduling sex romps between long-term partners with mismatched libidos. But it's a start.
We are all allowed these things. (Though we are not entitled to them.) A lot of us are socialized in various subcultures that tell us in explicit and implicit ways that we are not allowed these things, and that we should be deeply ashamed if we want some or all of them.
And some of these things, some of us may not even want them for ourselves. That's okay, too.
The point is simply this: You are allowed to talk frankly about sex, to make sure that your sex life is safe and fulfilling.
* * *
I'm happy to field questions in comments, if anyone is starting out on a talking-about-sex sort of journey, or doesn't even know how to begin to start a consent-centered approach with a long-term partner, or any related issues. We are allowed to not be ashamed if we don't know how to do this on our own! There are not, after all, not a hell of a lot of good models for building this sort of sexual framework.
Please Support Shakesville
This is, for those who have requested it, your bi-monthly reminder to donate to Shakesville and an important fundraiser to keep Shakesville going.
If you value the content and/or community in this space, please consider setting up a subscription or making a one-time contribution.
If you have appreciated being able to tune into Shakesville for coverage on Indiana, for getting distilled news about politics or other topics, for a safe and image-free space to discuss rape culture and/or acts of public violence, for recaps of your favorite show, for recipes, for the Fat Fashion threads, or for whatever else you appreciate at Shakesville, whether it's the moderation, the community in Open Threads, Film Corner, video transcripts, the blogarounds, or anything else, please remember that Shakesville is run exclusively on donations.
I cannot afford to do this full-time for free, but, even if I could, fundraising is also one of the most feminist acts I do here. I ask to be paid for my work because progressive feminist advocacy has value; because women's work has value.
I would certainly be grateful for your support, if you are able to chip in. The donation link is in the sidebar to the right. Or click here.
Thank you to each of you who donates or has donated, whether monthly or as a one-off. I am deeply appreciative. This community couldn't exist without that support, truly. Thank you.
My thanks as well to everyone who contributes to the space in other ways, whether as a contributor, a moderator, a guest writer, a transcriber, and/or as someone who takes the time to send me a note of support and encouragement. (Or a cool drawing!) This community couldn't exist without you, either.
Please note that I don't want anyone to feel obliged to contribute financially, especially if money is tight. There is a big enough readership that no one needs to donate if it would be a hardship, and no one should ever feel bad about that. ♥
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
Democratic Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel won the run-off election with challenger Chuy Garcia. Boo. BOOOOOOOOOOO.
In other election news: "The Ferguson City Council will have three black members for the first time in the city's history, now that voters elected two new black members to the council on Tuesday, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported."
[Content Note: War on agency] Goddammit: "Kansas became the first state to ban a common second trimester abortion procedure when Governor Sam Brownback, a Republican, on Tuesday signed into a law an act to halt what lawmakers said are 'dismemberment abortions.' The law that goes into effect on July 1 prohibits the use of dilation and evacuation. The bill says the procedure can result in the fetus being extracted in pieces. Supporters in Kansas have called the procedure horrifying while women's healthcare groups have said it is considered the safest way to terminate a pregnancy in the second trimester." OH WELL TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY I GUESS.
[CN: Surveillance] "Human rights campaigners have prepared a federal lawsuit aiming to permanently shut down the bulk collection of billions of US phone records–not, this time, by the National Security Agency, but by the Drug Enforcement Agency. Human Rights Watch, represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, filed their lawsuit in Los Angeles federal court on Wednesday morning to stop the DEA from hoovering up billions of records of Americans' international calls without a warrant. The reach of the program, exposed by USA Today, lasted for two decades and served as a template for the NSA's gigantic and ongoing bulk surveillance of US phone data after 9/11." The "war on drugs," long supported by both Republicans and Democrats, has been used in countless ways to usher in a police and carceral state. And we are going to have a devil of a time unwinding the damage, if it can even be unwound at all.
[CN: Misogyny] Hey, remember when Rand Paul had that supercool interview with CNBC Anchor Kelly Evans where he yelled at her about being biased? Well, he did the same thing again, during an interview with Today show anchor Savannah Guthrie! Looking good, Mr. Presidential Candidate!
[CN: Homophobia] Tom DeLay, who is apparently still talking, says he has the right to refuse to serve a gay person, because "if he comes in and asks me to undermine my values, what I believe in, undermine my religious liberty, then I have the right to stand up for what I believe in and not serve him." Because: "We love people who have chosen to be homosexuals. The problem is, we abhor the sin." Okay. But all human beings are "sinners," and Protestant Christian doctrine says all sins are equally abhorrent in the eyes of their god, so this is bullshit. Even if it weren't just ethically indecent, it's unjustifiable rubbish.
Sarah Thomas has been chosen as the NFL's first female full-time game official. Congratulations to her, and may the NFL still go rot.
The Golden Girls Lego Set Might Soon Be Reality. THE GOLDEN GIRLS LEGO SET MIGHT SOON BE REALITY!!!
Awwwww, lol: Twin Peaks cast makes a video saying that Twin Peaks without David Lynch is like... And it is very sweet! (Also true.)
And finally! Chester the Shelter Dog was finally adopted after five years at the shelter, after a picture of him holding a sign asking why no one wanted him went viral. Joyblub forever.
Today in Rape Culture
[Content Note: Sexual abuse of a child; description of assault; rape apologia.]
A judge in Orange County, California, has significantly reduced the sentence of a convicted rapist and defended his ruling in the most heinous way: Kevin Jonas Rojano-Nieto was sentenced to the 25-year minimum sentence after being convicted of sexually assaulting a three-year-old female relative, but Orange County Superior Court Judge M. Marc Kelly reduced his sentence to 10 years in prison, saying the sentence was "too harsh" and a violation of "his constitutional rights."
Kelly further defended his decision by saying that Rojano-Nieto "did not appear to consciously intend to harm [the victim] when he sexually assaulted her."
"However, in looking at the facts of Mr. Rojano's case, the manner in which this offense was committed is not typical of a predatory, violent brutal sodomy of a child case," Kelly said. "Mr. Rojano did not seek out or stalk [the victim]. He was playing video games and she wandered into the garage. He inexplicably became sexually aroused but did not appear to consciously intend to harm [the victim] when he sexually assaulted her."This is not accurate. Rojano-Nieto did not "almost immediately" stop because he "realized the wrongfulness of his act." He sexually assaulted a child behind a locked door and covered her mouth when he heard her mother looking for her, and then he sexually assaulted her again.
The defendant "almost immediately" stopped and "realized the wrongfulness of his act," Kelly said.
It is incredible that any judge (or any human being, frankly) would argue with a straight face that someone who rapes a child didn't intend to harm that child. As if a rapist's intent is even remotely relevant, anyway.
Further, to make this absurd, contemptible argument, Kelly also deliberately misrepresents the facts of the case in a gross attempt to justify making it.
And he didn't stop there:
The judge went on to blame Rojano-Nieto's own "dysfunctional" upbringing for his "inexplicable" assault on the child.Okay. There are lots of people who fit that description. Very few of them rape children.
He noted that Rojano-Nieto's life had featured "family disruption" that made him "an insecure, socially withdrawn, timid, and extremely immature young man with limited self-esteem."
Rarely have I seen such a naked display of failure to empathize with a victim, and such a bold display of sympathy for a rapist.
There is already a movement to recall Judge Kelly from the bench. The Orange County prosecutor is meanwhile considering appealing Kelly's ruling.
I hope that the young survivor and her family have the resources they need to heal, and that they find something resembling justice and peace.
[H/T to Shaker S.]
More Chipping Away at Roe
[Content Note: War on agency.]
Anti-choice legislators in North Carolina have a reprehensible new trick up their sleeves: They're trying to legislate the prevention of medical students from even learning how to perform abortions.
Tucked deep in HB 465, an anti-abortion bill that would restrict the procedure in several different ways, is an obscure provision that stipulates that "no department at the medical school at East Carolina University or the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill shall permit an employee to perform or supervise the performance of an abortion as part of the employee's official duties."It has long been obvious that abortion opponents who enact abortion restrictions under the auspices of "women's health" are full of shit, but this really puts paid the lie that they care even a little bit about the health, safety, and welfare of pregnant people.
According to the GOP lawmakers who proposed the bill, this particular section of HB 465 will help ensure that taxpayer dollars don't go toward abortion services. Because East Carolina University (ECU) and the University of North Carolina (UNC) are state schools, abortion opponents don't want any of their instruction time to be spent on the procedure. But this complicated effort to separate taxpayer money from abortion services could have huge implications for the medical field.
"It takes several steps to get to the point of the regulation," Elizabeth Nash, the senior states issues associate at the Guttmacher Institute, a think tank that closely tracks abortion-related legislation, told ThinkProgress. "It takes you a couple steps to understand that this would eliminate — or, at the very least, drastically reduce — the abortion training programs that are in place."
That would have particularly big consequences for UNC, which is ranked as one of the country's top five OB-GYN residency programs. UNC's medical school is currently home to a Ryan Program — a national initiative intended to address the growing shortage of abortion providers by providing more opportunities for doctors to be trained in pregnancy termination. Residents can also pursue a separate family planning fellowship that includes opportunities for abortion training and research. If HB 465 is enacted into law, both of those programs could be placed into jeopardy.
"It raises a very serious issue: Who's going to be training the OB-GYNs at UNC to do abortions, if faculty can't do them?" Dr. David Grimes, a retired abortion doctor and researcher who completed his own residency at UNC, told ThinkProgress.
...It also threatens to influence the care that women may receive in emergency situations. Pregnancies sometimes go wrong, and the so-called "miscarriage management" that takes place in a hospital often isn't any different than abortion in a practical sense. But if doctors haven't been trained in that area, where does that leave women who need immediate medical attention?
Despite their rhetoric about abortion being "murder" committed by flaky, irresponsible sluts who hate babies, abortion is a crucial reproductive healthcare procedure that is not merely necessary to give people control over their reproduction but also necessary in many cases to save pregnant people's lives.
A decade or so ago, even anti-choice legislators felt obliged to acquiesce to abortion exceptions when the life or health of "the mother" was in jeopardy. Slowly, health exceptions have fallen away, and now there are elected legislators who don't have compunction about opposing exceptions even in cases where a pregnant person's life is at risk.
And here we are: Now they openly admit they don't give a single fuck about having healthcare providers who are trained to save pregnant people's lives, if saving those lives depends on aborting a fetus that will not live anyway.
I have said many times (for instance) that fetuses are valued more highly than the people who carry them, that the potential life of every fetus is more important than the actual life of a pregnant person. Never has this been more clear.
Anti-choicers love fetuses. And they hate people.
Because fetuses don't come with the complications of living human beings. Fetuses are perfect, flawless, sinless. Clean slates. No dents, no dings, no scars, no fuck-ups, no evidence of living a mortal life, nothing to judge and find them wanting.
Only they are worthy of protection, because only they have done nothing to justify apathy, neglect, disdain.
It's no coincidence that the same people who are seeking to audit and shame people on government assistance, and undermine wage protections for workers, and defend institutional oppressions of every description, and wage wars, and justify all of it on the basis that those people fucked up and they deserve whatever we've determined should be coming to them, are also the same people who are willing to let human beings die to protect fetuses.
Fetuses deserve our love and protection, because they haven't made the terrible mistake of being born and living a human life.
Of making choices that can be held in judgment by punitive-minded sanctimony machines, who lay in wait to find reason to use those choices to harm the people making them.
Even after they limit those people's choices to no good ones, only bad and worse ones.
People fail, and people struggle. Right in plain view, where it can make other people uncomfortable. Fetuses do neither.
They are the only "people" worthy of anti-choicers' love, because they are the only ones who don't need it.
Their god-fearing hearts, just overflowingly full of love for perfect little potentialities, who have no need or expectation of love. Or protection, or empathy, or compassion, or help. Unlike human beings, contemptible in all our messy humanness.
This expansive love for fetuses—it's all just a ruse, a cunning mask to hide the cavernously profound lack of love for living, breathing people.
It's so much easier to care for "the voiceless," and have to answer to no one but a distant, absent god. There's no one who makes it hard to love them, by being flawed and complicated, and no one to tell you you're wrong.
And Again
[Content Note: Police brutality; racism; eliminationist violence.]
Over the weekend, 50-year-old Walter Scott, a black man from North Charleston, South Carolina, was shot and killed by Patrolman Michael Thomas Slager, a white police officer, after Slager had pulled over Scott for a broken brake light. (Another municipal violation.) This was the police account of the shooting in early news reports:
A statement released by North Charleston police spokesman Spencer Pryor said a man ran on foot from the traffic stop and an officer deployed his department-issued Taser in an attempt to stop him.That was before a witness video surfaced [CN: footage of deadly shooting], showing what really happened. Which is Scott running away from Slager, and Slager shooting eight rounds at his back, hitting him five times. Scott falls to the ground, and Slager goes to him, not to offer medical assistance, but to handcuff him. He then returns back to where he was standing when he shot Scott, picks up his Taser, and then returns to where Scott is lying face-down in the grass, handcuffed and dying, and plants the Taser near his body.
That did not work, police said, and an altercation ensued as the men struggled over the device. Police allege that during the struggle the man gained control of the Taser and attempted to use it against the officer.
The officer then resorted to his service weapon and shot him, police alleged.
It is a textbook example of what witnesses have alleged—and what people fear—that police do after officer shootings all the time.
Slager will now "be relieved of his duties in the near future. Mayor Keith Summey confirmed Slager will also be charged with murder."
Which doesn't mean he will be convicted, even if he makes it to trial. And even if he is convicted, that will still not be justice: "Legal charges and bloated prison cells can never make up for the loss of black lives. Death is not justice. Black people alive is."
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker Merkohl: "Have you found 'your people'? Who are they, and what do you like doing with them?"
He Seems Nice
[Content Note: Violent rhetoric.]
Republican Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner says he wants to "rip the economic guts out of Indiana."
He told the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board Monday: "Believe me, I am going to rip — try to rip the economic guts out of Indiana."This rivalry goes back decades. Once upon a time, Indiana and Illinois had a reciprocal tax agreement that meant if you lived in one state and worked in the other, which is especially common around the Chicagoland border where I live, you only had to pay state income tax in the state in which you lived. And then the steel mills in Northwest Indiana collapsed, which had been the biggest employment draw on the Indiana side of the border. So Illinois withdrew from the agreement, because way more people were living in Indiana and commuting into Chicago for jobs than the other way around.
He went on to say, "We're coming after Indiana big time."
So now we've got this double-state tax issue (although we do get credit for taxes paid on wages in Illinois), and both states are constantly campaigning to lure businesses from the other state.
Illinois' campaigns are typically based on having better social and employment policies, and Indiana's campaigns are typically based on having better tax incentives for corporations.
But it's usually not this ugly. "Rip the economic guts out of Indiana." Jesus Jones.
Sex. And Consent. And the Flutter of Hearts.
[Content Note: Hostility to consent.]
In case you're not on Twitter, or just happened to miss it, I spent part of this afternoon tweeting responses to this gross article in Elle in which the author makes the (yawningly familiar) argument that talking about sex during sex is killing passion blah blah fart.
Here is a Storify of my tweets, about the importance of talking about sex and the centering of consent, for both a safe and fulfilling sex life.
(If, of course, you are a person who is even interested in being sexually active with another person.)
I hate pretty much every single thing about that article, but this passage in particular just makes my teeth fucking grind:
All great love stories have a moment when the protagonists abandon the codified rigidities of language for the fluent river of sensuality. Take Dante's famous lovers, Paolo and Francesca, as captured perhaps most concisely in a sonnet by Edna St. Vincent Millay: Studying literature together one long afternoon, one of the two smitten scholars—till recently an awkward jumble of elbows and explanations—"lets fall the coloured book upon the floor." Or as Dante put it: "That day they read no more."Oh, do shut up.
In our safety-checked and responsible culture, in our endlessly chattering, texting, blogging, brownnosing, apologizing, analyzing, verbalizing culture, eroticism may be the last frontier we can explore intuitively. Like dance, sexuality is at once preverbal and transverbal: It predates the word and outstrips it. To pin it down with questions and formulas is like pinning a butterfly to a wall. You can see it better there, but it no longer flutters. And neither, in all likelihood, does your heart.
Clearly, I'm biased, but I think Iain and I have a pretty great love story. (It's great as far as I'm concerned, in any case.) I fell in love with him over exchanged words. I loved him before I ever saw what he looked like. Language has been the centerpiece of our relationship since the day it started—and we still write each other love letters, fourteen years later.
We talk about sex during sex. We talk about sex before and after sex. Before—what we want to do. After—what felt so fucking good. During: We look deeply into each other's eyes and ask, Do you want me to do this thing to you?, and we wait for the breathless and urgent reply: Yes. Yes.
(Or, occasionally, no. Which simply leads us elsewhere.)
My heart still flutters. It flutters every time he walks in the door, every time we kiss. Because we use language to build a fortress of intimacy inside which we are both safe, and thus both free to explore. Ourselves and each other.
I understand, I do, why it might seem to any person socialized inside a rape culture that sex can only be exhilarating when it happens under the ever-present threat of being hurt, of something—or someone—going too far. That anything else is just a butterfly pinned to a wall.
But that's only because it's the only construct we're taught, the only model we're shown.
I am a person with a partner who has built something different with me. And, in my experience, there is naught that casts aside every last remnant of inhibition like profound trust.
Nothing is more exhilarating than that.
Daily Dose of Cute
Dudley, hiding his delicate eyes from the harsh light of day under Duckie.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
Finish This Sentence
The last time I talked about Shakesville in offline life was...
(Just to be abundantly clear, "Shakesville" should not be presumed—as it never should be!—to be synonymous with "Melissa McEwan." I'm referencing the community. Also: "I never talk about Shakesville in offline life" is a perfectly cromulent answer.)
Obviously, I talk about Shakesville all the time, because it's a huge part of my life. But, just from a reader's perspective, I'm constantly saying to Iain and friends, "So-and-so made a great point about that in comments..." or "[Contributor] had a terrific post about that..."
This Is Class Warfare
[Content Note: Class warfare; choice policing; poverty.]
In yesterday's In the News, I linked a piece about several state proposals to limit the food choices of recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), i.e. food stamps.
Today, I read this piece about a proposal in Kansas which would limit how recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), i.e. welfare, are able to spend their government assistance:
If House Bill 2258 is signed into law by Gov. Sam Brownback (R) this week, Kansas families receiving government assistance will no longer be able to use those funds to visit swimming pools, see movies, go gambling or get tattoos on the state's dime.Bullshit. BULLSHIT. If the TANF program was about "prosperity" and "having a great life," then the payments would be enough so that people could prosper and have a great life, in whatever way they define that for themselves. But, as it is, the payments are barely enough to ensure that the people reliant on them can fucking survive month to month, no less build up meaningful savings, a nest egg, a personal safety net.
Those are just a few of the restrictions contained within the measure that promises to tighten regulations on how poor families spend their government aid.
State Sen. Michael O'Donnell, a Wichita Republican who has advocated for the bill, said the legislation is designed to pressure those receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to spend "more responsibly."
"We're trying to make sure those benefits are used the way they were intended," O'Donnell, vice chair of the state senate's standing committee on public health and welfare, told the Topeka Capital-Journal. "This is about prosperity. This is about having a great life."
The law prohibits recipients from spending any money at all "on body piercings, massages, spas, tobacco, nail salons, lingerie, arcades, cruise ships or visits to psychics" or at a "theme park, dog or horse racing facility, parimutuel facility, or sexually oriented business or any retail establishment which provides adult-oriented entertainment in which performers disrobe or perform in an unclothed state for entertainment, or in any business or retail establishment where minors under age 18 are not permitted."
So, if you don't have healthcare coverage for physical therapy, and treat aches and pains and misalignments by going to a private masseur, you're shit out of luck.
If you're addicted to tobacco or alcohol, you're shit out of luck.
If you want to take your kid to a theme park for their birthday, or an arcade, you're shit out of luck.
If you are getting married, and wanted to have a bachelor or bachelorette party at a club or a bar, you're shit out of luck.
Basically, if you thought that you were an adult human being with dignity who should get to spend your money however damn well you want to spend it, you're shit out of luck.
Further, the bill "limits TANF recipients from withdrawing more than $25 per day from ATMs." You know, to make sure they're "responsible." Never mind that even responsible people have emergencies, and sometimes need to spend more than $25 on one urgent purchase.
This is despicable. Just utterly infantilizing, dehumanizing shit.
The measure was passed by the Kansas House and Senate last week and is widely supported by Republicans, who control both legislative chambers, according to the AP.And, apparently, he is supportive of choice-policing garbage that Boostraps Bullshitters think will shame people into magically becoming wealthy.
Brownback is expected to sign the bill, according to reports, though spokeswoman Eileen Hawley said the governor plans to review the measure carefully. If the bill is signed, the AP noted, the law will take effect July 1.
"The governor believes strongly that employment is the most effective path out of poverty and he is supportive of work requirements that help people become self-sufficient," she said in a statement.
Look, taxpayers' money being used for welfare is not the same as people giving money to charity, and they need to stop acting like it is. If you donate your money to a charitable organization, that organization has a charter which delineates how contributions will be spent and is thus answerable if they are misspent.
But when your tax dollars are disseminated to people in need of government assistance, you don't get any say in how that money is spent. At least, you shouldn't. Because their choices are none of your fucking business, and because respecting the right of adult humans to make decisions for themselves is both the decent thing to do and part of how adults, given the opportunity, do learn to prosper and become responsible.
And, for the record, when you've got no meaningful disposable income, treating yourself to pierced ears or a tattoo or a day at the spa or a night at a casino is hardly "irresponsible," when that little bit of indulgence, in lieu of a holiday people with more money can afford, is the only thing standing between you and total emotional collapse. So fuck this sanctimonious judgment.
I have nothing but undiluted contempt for anyone who would lay the blame for entrenched poverty at the feet of aid recipients, belligerently dismissing them as intrinsically unhelpable without legal constrictions on their spending, because they haven't demonstrated sufficient ability to overcome heaping fuckloads of privileged exploitation and institutional neglect to satisfy wealthy legislators' pithy, ignorant expectations.
This isn't about helping anyone. It's about punishing people for being poor.
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
[Content Note: Terrorism; death penalty] After a month-long trial, a jury "of seven women and five men began deliberations Tuesday on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's role in the 2013 bombing of the Boston Marathon. Tsarnaev, 21, faces 30 criminal counts covering the twin blasts at the race's finish line, which killed three and injured 260, plus the killing of an MIT police officer three days later, a carjacking, and a shootout in suburban Watertown, Massachusetts, where Tsarnaev's older brother and alleged co-conspirator died. Of those counts, 17 carry the death penalty. If Tsarnaev is found guilty of any of them, the trial will move to a second phase to decide whether he should be executed. A conviction on at least some counts is all but assured because Tsarnaev's defense team acknowledged on the first day of the trial that he was responsible. Their strategy is to save him from the death penalty by persuading the jury that he was manipulated by his radicalized Muslim brother, Tamerlan, 26." I hope he does not get the death penalty, because I do not support the death penalty on principle, even leaving aside the many issues the US is having with executing prisoners without torturing them to death.
[CN: Rape culture] The University of Virginia chapter of Phi Kappa Psi, which was identified as the fraternity at which an alleged gang rape featured in Rolling Stone's roundly-criticized article, is now suing Rolling Stone: "In a statement, UVA's chapter of Phi Kappa Psi said they would 'pursue all available legal action against the magazine'. The chapter said its members were ostracised and the fraternity house was vandalised as a result of the article, which was read by millions."
In US jobs news: "US job openings surged to a 14-year high in February, a sign that the labor market remains on a solid footing despite a sharp slowdown in job growth last month. Job openings, a measure of labor demand, increased 168,000 to a seasonally adjusted 5.1 million, the Labor Department said in its monthly Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey on Tuesday. That was the highest level since January 2001." That sounds great, except: What kind of jobs are they? Are they full-time jobs with benefits and a livable wage?
[CN: Homophobia] Grody Rand Paul has officially announced he's running for president.
[CN: Environmental damage] Oh fuck: "Radiation from Japan's 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster has for the first time been detected along a North American shoreline, though at levels too low to pose a significant threat to human or marine life, scientists said. Trace amounts of Cesium-134 and Cesium-137 were detected in samples collected on 19 February off the coast of Ucluelet, a small town on Vancouver Island in Canada's British Columbia, said Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution scientist Ken Buesseler. 'Radioactivity can be dangerous, and we should be carefully monitoring the oceans after what is certainly the largest accidental release of radioactive contaminants to the oceans in history,' Buesseler said in a statement." I want to underline that the levels of radiation are too low to be a significant threat, but it's not good news all the same, since contaminated water has been leaking for a year.
[CN: Sexual violence; anti-choicery; Christian Supremacy] Fucking hell: "The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing the Obama administration for documents it says will show religious organizations are restricting access to abortions for unaccompanied immigrant children. The civil rights groups is concerned that unaccompanied immigrant teenagers who have been raped are being denied access to emergency contraception and abortion because of the religious beliefs of groups providing care. In particular, the government contracts with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to care for unaccompanied immigrant children." Why the fuck is the USCCB even getting these contracts? Dammit.
[CN: Incitement of violence] Rick Santorum, the worst of the worst, says that US rightwingers "must 'begin to push back and rise up' against left-wing officials who are bent on 'imposing their will on people of faith.'" Good grief. Again, this is the dude who wants Christian Bibles in schools. Projection much, asshole?
[CN: Islamophobia] Jack Jenkins at Think Progress: "Has Bill Maher Finally Gone Too Far?" That ship sailed about a thousand years ago.
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS: "A new documentary on the life and times of legendary Jamaican musician and supermodel Grace Jones has been approved by BBC... According to a press releases, the documentary will be, 'a cinematic journey into the private and public worlds of Grace Jones, mixing intimate personal footage with unique staged musical sequences.'"
And finally: OMG THIS KITTEN LOLOLOLOL AWWWWWWWWW!
Quote of the Day
[Content Note: Fat hatred; hostility to consent.]
Yesterday someone stole pictures of my friends and me from FAT: the Play and uploaded them to a subreddit dedicated to hating fat people. This has created a space for people to openly talk about how disgusting we are, how we are a problem, how we are specifically not-sexy, how we are motivations and warnings for them to be Not Fat, and for them to threaten us with violence. Today I'm thinking about the Myspace days of the Secret Internet Fatty and how that made me feel like if people knew how fat I was (or that I was fat at all), they wouldn't like me, and how that is because I grew up with not many friends. I'm thinking about how that was because I was targeted a lot for bullying because of my size and because of the queerness I was never able to hide, as much as I wanted to. I'm thinking about how I've grown into a beautiful, confident and lovable adult who still has trouble receiving that love because the experiences of my childhood still trick me into believing that any love I might receive is fake, is a joke, is a misunderstanding.—Queer and Present Danger, who has also posted beautiful photos of his fat self at the link. Photos which should not be radical, but are. Photos which put air in my lungs.
...I'm thinking about the radical potential of public vulnerability and the self-disciplining mechanisms that prevent us from being close to one another and to our selves. I'm thinking about the fat people who were able to show love to themselves and in turn, show me how to love myself, and how grateful I feel that so many of those people are in my life today. I'm thinking about how every day for me is full of pain and sorrow and anger and fire and laughter and joy and resistance. I'm thinking about how fat hatred is insidious, and how it is a Hydra. I'm thinking about this is merely the latest incarnation of centuries of people attempting to discipline fat people for daring to live unapologetically. I'm thinking about how the ways in which we think about bodies are defined by legacies of colonialism and white supremacy. I'm thinking about how this isn't the first and it won't be the last and it was here before me and it will be here after me. I'm thinking about how this is why we do what we do. I'm thinking about how we are a threat, about how powerful that is. I'm thinking about how we're not stopping.
This has happened to me. More than once. My pictures stolen and posted in a fat-hating forum, for mockery and contempt. I get emails about them, alerting me they have been posted in a hostile space, and the emails are from people I don't know who feign concern for me—but I am not a fool. They are usually from the very people who posted them, who get off on knowing that I've seen what they've done to me.
My picture has been stolen for use in a racist meme. My picture has been stolen by people who Google "fat feminist" because they're seeking an example to show that all feminists are fat and ugly. My picture has been stolen by all sorts of people, who know who I am or don't know who I am, for a variety of nefarious uses.
If I complain about that, I am told, "That's what you get for posting your picture."
But I won't stop posting my picture. Because my picture has also been used by other fat people to help them look at themselves a new way. To take to a hairdresser to get a short haircut for the first time. To take to a tattoo artist as inspiration. By thin people to help them work through their thin privilege and center the humanity of people with fat bodies.
Visibility is vulnerability, and it is power. I'm thinking about that, and I'm thinking about Queer and Present Danger, and I'm thankful for him and his beautiful words.
Cheers.
Dispatches from the Clown Car
Hey, remember how the Republicans were going to have a shortened primary and be nice to each other this time around, because they'd convinced themselves that extended, bruising primaries is why they've lost the last two elections, and not because John McCain was an angry, entitled grump who failed at concealing the hot cauldron of rage beneath the transparent veneer of a terse smile stretched thinly across his face, and who chose an epic dipshit as his running mate, nor because Mitt Romney was a mannequin from the 1% Store whose attempts at seeming folksy made him seem like a clueless dolt, and who literally said out loud that people aren't entitled to food, nor because their party's entire platform is rank garbage, nor because Barack Obama was a superior candidate by virtually every metric?
Whoooooooooooooooooops!
In the first salvo of the 2016 Republican ad wars, a conservative group is about to unleash a seven-figure ad campaign targeting Senator Rand Paul for being out of step with the party on Iran, just as he launches his presidential campaign."He doesn't even want to starve and bomb the fuck out of everyone! He's basically BARACK HUSSEIN OBUMMER!" Cool campaign.
The Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America, a 501(c)(4) group led by veteran Republican operative Rick Reed, will go live with its campaign against Paul on Tuesday, while the senator is in Louisville, Kentucky, announcing his presidential candidacy. The group will begin airing ads on broadcast TV, cable and the Web in several early primary states accusing Paul of being weak on Iran and tying him to the Barack Obama administration's Iran policy, which polls show is deeply unpopular among Republican voters.
"Paul supports more negotiations with Iran while standing against more sanctions that would hold the Iranian regime accountable. That's not a conservative position, that's Obama's position," Reed told me in an interview Monday. "His longstanding position on Iran and his agreement with Obama on Iran calls into question his judgment."
The scale of the campaign is remarkable this early on in a primary fight, and reflects not only the depth of the hostility toward Paul's worldview among many conservatives but also the prominence of national security in the 2016 cycle.
I'm still super sad that there will be fewer Republican primary debates this campaign, because those are always terrific, if by "terrific" one means "an appalling display of mostly white men tearing each other to shreds over who hates more of the American people and also people all over the world, but especially marginalized USians, whose rights they definitely want to put in a garbage disposal."
But, sure, I guess I'll survive just watching surrogates run horrendo ad campaigns against every candidate, until one of them comes out the least worst and then proceeds to slowly reveal himself as a waking nightmare to the voting populace. Good times.
Meanwhile: Cue the progressive/libertarian dudes defending Rand Paul as a rare beacon of freedom-loving among Republicans, without a trace of irony, despite the fact that he's inveterately misogynistic, homophobic, and racist.
